Wasim Akram S/o Ajam Ali Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sonpur, Chowki Basdei v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Surajpur, District - Surajpur
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:11237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1832 of 2025 Wasim Akram S/o Ajam Ali Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sonpur, Chowki Basdei, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (In Jail) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Surajpur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 486/2025, vide order dated 12.02.2025 and the case of the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant on the basis of parity. 7. Let the applicant – Wasim Akram, involved in Crime No. 558/2024 registered at Police Station- Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 34 of IPC and 4 Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 5 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice - Kunal
Arguments
: Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 558/2024 registered at Police Station- Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant is in touch with Ashfaq Ullah, Jarifullah and Shahrukh Ansari for the last one 2 year and in month of June 2024, Ashfaq Ullahtold him that his father Jarifullah works in the share market in Adani, who has good knowledge of the Share Market, who invests money in such a company that the money doubles in 35 days, Ashfaq Ullah, Jarifullah and Shahrukh Ansari told him to invest 10,00,000/- and they will return the money in 35 days, they also issued a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- in favor of complainant. After a month when he asked for his said amount, they abused him with obscene language and threatened to kill him. Therefore the offence has been committed under Section 420, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that from perusal of the prosecution story it is clear that the applicant has not committed any offence. The applicant has not received any amount from any person by deceiving him/her, nor has he helped any other person to invest any amount nor has he deposited any amount in a bank account or in cash from any person. He further submits that there are three cases have been registered against him and the co-accused namely Mirajudding has already granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 486/2025, vide order dated 12.02.2025 and the applicant is in jail since 12.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on parity. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the 3 State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that during the course of investigation, co-accused Asfaq Ullah was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded wherein he confessed to cheat people of crores of rupees by promising to double their money within 52-60 days, along with his accomplices, including the applicant/accused Wasim Akram, Nazir Ansari, Mirajuddin, Shahrukh Ansari, and Jarifullah and during the investigation, various items, including bank cheque, cars, bikes, mobile phones, and other assets were seized and the involvement of the present applicant appears to be reasonable hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 12.12.2024 and the recovery made from the applicant and further the fact that there are three cases have been registered against him and further the fact that the co-accused namely Mirajudding has